The exact nature of long COVID is still coming to light, but we just got some of the best evidence yet that this debilitating condition stems from a brain injury.
It’s not contradicting itself though. Your first quoted statement says “using high-resolution scanners”. The last one says “conventional MRI studies”. The methodology is what is different.
Let me break it down so you see the point I was making - in case the bold wasn’t enough:
Using high-resolution scanners, researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford have shown microscopic, structural abnormalities in the brainstems of those recovering from COVID-19.
Signs of brain inflammation were present up to 18 months after first contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Here, they refer to people recovering from COVID-19, thus clearly indicate that patients are alive.
[…]
In living brains of those with long COVID, however, conventional MRI studies have shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem.
This paragraph immediately follows one that talks about autopsy(!) results, and here, they start a sentence with “in living brains […], however”, setting the sentence up as a contradiction to the previous one, with an emphasis on the word living in the article itself.
Here’s an example how the sentence should be written to not seemingly cause a contradiction / misdirect the reader:
However, previous studies conducted with conventional MRI had shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem in living brains.
They put emphasis on the change in observation from autopsy to living brains, linking this paragraph more strongly to the preceeding one, when they should have put emphasis on the conventional studies, building the context for the subsequent paragraph.
I don’t really understand what the difference between the fixed and og version is.
The fixed version is slightly is better, I agree, but I wouldn’t call it a necessary fix.
You are judging a field specialist(s) on basically their communication skills. We can’t all structure sentences well, brainholes work differently, wording thoughts is hard.
It’s a bit like bitching how a perfectly working shovel isn’t ornate enough since if it was it would have been more pleasant to work with - it’s prob true but it’s such a low gain ‘nice-to-have’ feature people generally don’t bother with it.
Imho narratives need to be pleasant and/or artistic, eg I expect a novel to be written good (tho absolutely not a huge point for me), I don’t expect that from a game theory book, I expect it to be correct. (Another example might be how stupidity convoluted laws/contracts/t&a are written.)
What I kinda demand (only slightly irrationally or at least to an impractical extend) is that the subject is conveyed in an exact manner. I expect exact communicating overall.
And the og text you quoted is exact.
Oh … and at both ends it’s literacy - their (+to some extend whoever proofread it) literacy levels shows how eloquently they conveyed their data & thoughts, your literacy level shows how you though they are contradicting themselves.
It’s not contradicting itself though. Your first quoted statement says “using high-resolution scanners”. The last one says “conventional MRI studies”. The methodology is what is different.
Let me break it down so you see the point I was making - in case the bold wasn’t enough:
Here, they refer to people recovering from COVID-19, thus clearly indicate that patients are alive.
This paragraph immediately follows one that talks about autopsy(!) results, and here, they start a sentence with “in living brains […], however”, setting the sentence up as a contradiction to the previous one, with an emphasis on the word living in the article itself.
Here’s an example how the sentence should be written to not seemingly cause a contradiction / misdirect the reader:
They put emphasis on the change in observation from autopsy to living brains, linking this paragraph more strongly to the preceeding one, when they should have put emphasis on the conventional studies, building the context for the subsequent paragraph.
I don’t really understand what the difference between the fixed and og version is.
The fixed version is slightly is better, I agree, but I wouldn’t call it a necessary fix.
You are judging a field specialist(s) on basically their communication skills. We can’t all structure sentences well, brainholes work differently, wording thoughts is hard.
It’s a bit like bitching how a perfectly working shovel isn’t ornate enough since if it was it would have been more pleasant to work with - it’s prob true but it’s such a low gain ‘nice-to-have’ feature people generally don’t bother with it.
Imho narratives need to be pleasant and/or artistic, eg I expect a novel to be written good (tho absolutely not a huge point for me), I don’t expect that from a game theory book, I expect it to be correct. (Another example might be how stupidity convoluted laws/contracts/t&a are written.)
What I kinda demand (only slightly irrationally or at least to an impractical extend) is that the subject is conveyed in an exact manner. I expect exact communicating overall.
And the og text you quoted is exact.
Oh … and at both ends it’s literacy - their (+to some extend whoever proofread it) literacy levels shows how eloquently they conveyed their data & thoughts, your literacy level shows how you though they are contradicting themselves.
Or am I?
Also, it’s not my fault that people goat all flustered about me simply pointing out that poor phrasing with “do they even proofread?”